Johnson v. City of Seattle

• Decision Date: 15 June 1909
• Citation: 102 P. 448,53 Wash. 564
• Parties: JOHNSON et al. v. CITY OF SEATTLE.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

102 P. 448

53 Wash. 564

JOHNSON et al. v. CITY OF SEATTLE.

Supreme Court of Washington

June 15, 1909

Appeal from Superior Court, King County; R. B. Albertson, Judge.

Emma Johnson and others appeal from an order affirming a reassessment for a street improvement; the City of Seattle being respondent. Affirmed.

C. M. Miller, for appellants.

Scott Calhoun, King Dykeman, and Howard A. Hanson, for respondent.

MOUNT J.

This appeal is from an order of the lower court affirming a reassessment made by the city council upon property benefited within a local improvement district in the city of Seattle. The facts are stipulated. It appears therefrom that in 1904 the city of Seattle by ordinance provided for the paving of Harvard avenue and Harvard avenue north. The property benefited was designated as 'Improvement District No 902.' The streets were paved as provided, and an assessment roll was prepared by the city engineer, who assessed the lots benefited back to 120 feet from the streets. This roll was referred by the city council to a committee for adjustment and equalization. This committee recommended that lots in blocks 360 feet deep should be assessed to the center of the block, or 180 feet, instead of 120 feet deep as the roll was originally prepared, and the committee carried out the changes in red ink in the column marked 'Changes ordered by the council.' These recommendations were adopted by the council. The assessment roll was then referred back to the engineer to make the changes agreed upon. The original amounts charged against each parcel of property were entered in the roll in black ink figures, while the changes 'ordered by the council' were entered in another column in red ink figures. The aggregate of these two columns was the same. In many instances the black ink figures were reduced by the red, and vice versa, so that in the aggregate the columns were equal. An ordinance was thereupon passed approving the assessment roll. This ordinance was numbered 11,343, and provided 'that there be and is hereby assessed and charged against each parcel and lot of land a part thereof contained in said local improvement district, as shown in said roll, the respective amounts therein set against each parcel and lot of land and part thereof, which said assessments shall be levied and collected in ten equal annual installments; * * * the whole amount hereby assessed and charged against the property in said local improvement district being the sum of $135,131.91.' The rate of assessment was stated by the front foot for subdivisions of each lot, and this rate was carried into the assessment roll. Certain appeals were taken from the order of the council to the superior court of King county, but the roll was confirmed by the court. Thereafter the roll was certified to the city treasurer for collection. This officer maintained that the red ink figures were approved by the ordinance, while some of the taxpayers whose assessments were lowered by the black ink figures insisted that the ordinance approved the black ink figures, and refused to pay the amount shown by the red ink figures. Large amounts were collected upon the basis of the red ink figures. Thereafter bonds as provided by the ordinance were issued for the unpaid portion of the assessments, and these bonds were tendered to the contractor who had made the improvement. This contractor, viz., the Barber Asphalt Paving Company, refused to accept the bonds, and brought an action in mandamus to compel the city to make a reassessment of the property. That action was prosecuted to this court ( State ex rel Barber Asphalt Paving Company v. Seattle, 42 Wash. 370 85 P. 11), and this court held that the assessment of the 60-foot strip was void for want of notice to the property owners, but that the assessment was valid for the strip 120 feet deep. The case was remanded, with instructions to reassess the 60-foot strip for the amount apportioned thereto, viz., $2,222.29, and accrued interest.

In the meantime one Frances E. Lester, a property owner, brought an action to require the city treasurer to accept full payment of her assessment based on the black ink figures in the assessment roll. Her property was a narrow strip within the 120-foot limit. The black ink figures charged her parcel the sum of $2.34, while the red ink figures showed her assessment to be $76.23. The lower court sustained her contention that the 120-foot strip was shown by the black ink figures and was a valid assessment, and ordered the city treasurer to receive the $2.34 and cancel the assessment. Several other parties brought similar actions with the same result. The city appealed to this court from the judgment in the Lester Case, and we reversed the judgment of the lower court ( Lester v. Seattle, 42 Wash. 540, 85 P. 14) and said: 'The judgment entered by the trial court, however, not only canceled the void assessment on the respondent's property and enjoined its...